Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The facts are too glaring to be ignored in the present writ application. Petitioner entered the service of the State of Bihar in the year, 1959 as Overseer. Subsequently according to petitioner the nomenclature was changed of the post to that of Junior Engineer. He served the department, according to him, for almost 35 years before he superannuated on 31.10.1994. Eleven years after his retirement, petitioner discovered that he had certain rights as a Government servant. He realized that he had not been granted time bound promotions first and second in terms of the recommendation of 4th Pay Revision Committee which came into effect in the year, 1981. He also realized that he had not been paid increments from 1.9.63 as well as 1.9.65. According to petitioner since the respondents State did not act on their own all these years he did approach them from time to time. But non-response on their part forced the petitioner to approach this Court in the year, 2005. 3. The basic question which does arise in this writ application is whether the doors of the Court are to be kept open for a litigant and it is permissible to him to walk in as and when he feels like so. Strictly speaking the laws of limitation do not fetter the power under section 226 of the Constitution of India but even as a public policy the question does arise whether the Court can shut its eyes to the time when the cause of action arose and the time when the petitioner has knocked at the door of justice. The relief which the petitioner has sought with regard to time bound promotion relates to the year 1981 the increment as also noticed relates to the years, 1963 and 1965 and this writ application was filed eleven years after he retired. 4. The filing of the writ application has begotten the petitioner certain indulgence from the State. He has been given increments and the pay has been accordingly revised. This Court can only observe that the State is charitable to him. The Court would not like to add more than that what has been noted above. 4. The filing of the writ application has begotten the petitioner certain indulgence from the State. He has been given increments and the pay has been accordingly revised. This Court can only observe that the State is charitable to him. The Court would not like to add more than that what has been noted above. This Court is not at all inclined to pass any direction upon the respondent to given to petitioner time bound promotions which he is claiming at such a belated stage and also pay him the arrears of pay by virtue of such time bound promotion if at all it accrues to him. 5. This writ application is dismissed as being hopelessly barred by acquiescence, laches and delay for which the petitioner is responsible not the system.